AQA A-Level English Language 7702: Paper 2 – Language Diversity and Change — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s own section structure, question count or mark tariffs — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board for practice at the exact format and tariffs the board sets.

Related: Language Diversity and Change study guide | Language Diversity and Change revision notes

---

Section A

1. Distinguish between sociolect and dialect, giving the basis of variation for each. [3]

2. Explain why establishing an unfamiliar text’s personal, social, geographical and temporal context, and its audience, purpose, genre and mode, before analysing individual language features improves an evaluative answer. [5]

Section B

3. An extract of internal messages between hospital nurses includes the abbreviations “obs”, “NBM” and “handover”, used without explanation.

(a) Identify the type of language variation shown, and explain your reasoning. [3] (b) Analyse the social function of this variation for the group using it. [5]

4. A transcript of a radio interview includes a speaker saying: “aye, that’s reet, we allus do it that way round ’ere.” Analyse how this extract demonstrates dialect variation, referring to at least two specific features. [5]

5. Explain why a language-change essay must draw on examples from across the specification’s full timeframe, rather than only present-day usage. [3]

6. A word’s recorded frequency in a corpus falls from 340 occurrences per million words in 1960 to 12 occurrences per million words in 2020. Explain what kind of evidence this represents, and what caution should be applied before drawing a conclusion about language change from it alone. [5]

7. Explain the concept of representation and how it might differ between a text produced by an in-group member and a text produced by an outsider describing the same group. [5]

8. Name and briefly explain two named debates or attitudes that could be referenced in an evaluative essay on language change. [4]

9. Evaluate the claim that language change should be resisted in order to preserve standards of “correct” English. [9]

---

Answers

1. Sociolect varies according to social group membership — occupation, gender, ethnicity — while dialect varies according to geography — regional, national or international variation [1] [1] [1].

2. Establishing who produced a text and in what social and geographical setting [1], when it was produced (relevant to a change-focused answer) [1], and its audience, purpose, genre and mode [1] gives an evaluative answer the context it needs to explain why a feature is being used, not just identify it [1]. Working through context systematically before analysing language features also prevents the common failure of jumping straight to isolated features without first establishing why they matter for this particular text [1].

3. (a) This is an example of occupational sociolect, since the abbreviations vary according to professional group membership rather than geography [1] [1] [1]. (b) Specialist lexis such as this creates efficient, rapid communication among group members who share the same background knowledge, allowing information to be conveyed quickly in a time-pressured environment [1] [1]. It simultaneously constructs in-group identity, since using the abbreviations correctly signals membership of the professional community [1] [1], while potentially excluding or confusing outsiders unfamiliar with the terms — connecting to the specification’s focus on how language is used to enact relationships [1].

4. “Reet” for “right” and “’ere” for “here” show non-standard pronunciation/spelling representing a regional accent feature, a marker of geographical dialect [1] [1]. “Allus” (always) and the phrase “we allus do it that way round ’ere” show regional lexical and grammatical variation distinct from Standard English phrasing [1] [1]. Together these features place the speaker within a specific regional speech community, which is the defining basis of dialect variation [1].

5. The specification’s timeframe for language change runs from 1600 to the present day [1], so an essay confined to present-day examples cannot demonstrate genuine change over time, only a snapshot of current usage [1]. A strong answer includes at least one historical comparison point, which demonstrates the candidate understands change as a process observed across periods, not simply variation that exists today [1].

6. This is an example of corpus/frequency data, a legitimate form of research evidence named in the specification alongside dictionaries and other language collections [1] [1]. The caution required is that a fall in frequency alone does not explain why the change occurred, or rule out other factors such as a shift in the topics the corpus happens to cover, changes in what is being written about, or the specific texts sampled in each period [1] [1]; frequency data should be treated as evidence to be interpreted alongside other sources, not as self-explanatory proof of a cause [1].

7. Representation is how language is used to construct a particular image or portrayal of a group, which may reinforce or challenge existing social attitudes [1] [1]. An in-group member’s text is more likely to use insider terminology neutrally or with pride, reflecting lived experience and shared identity [1] [1]; an outsider’s text describing the same group may rely on generalisation, unfamiliar terminology used inaccurately, or framing that reflects the outsider’s own assumptions rather than the group’s self-understanding, which can produce a less accurate or even stigmatising representation [1].

8. Any two: the prescriptivist versus descriptivist debate — prescriptivists view language change as decline from a correct standard, while descriptivists view it as natural, neutral variation to be recorded rather than judged [1] [1]; the debate over whether a particular dialect or sociolect is unfairly stigmatised — for example, whether a regional or social variety is treated as “incorrect” rather than simply different, reflecting social attitudes toward the group who speaks it rather than any inherent linguistic deficiency [1] [1]. (Accept also: Aitchison’s Damp Spoon, Crumbling Castle or Infectious Disease metaphors for the prescriptivist reaction to change, or functional theory’s view that change meets new communicative needs.)

9. Case for resisting change: a prescriptivist view holds that a shared, stable standard supports clear communication across contexts and generations, and that some changes (such as the erosion of a grammatical distinction) can genuinely reduce precision in meaning [1] [1]. Case against resisting change: a descriptivist view holds that language change is a natural, continuous process that has always occurred — the English of 1600 differs enormously from today’s, and no point in that continuous shift can be objectively fixed as the “correct” one to preserve [1] [1]; attempts to label certain dialects or forms as incorrect often reflect social attitudes towards the speakers of those varieties rather than genuine linguistic deficiency, so “preserving standards” can function as a way of stigmatising particular social or regional groups [1] [1]. Judgement: since the specification itself frames prescriptivism and descriptivism as competing, both academically recognised positions rather than a settled question, a strong evaluative answer should conclude that “correctness” in language is best understood as socially constructed rather than objectively fixed, while still acknowledging that shared conventions have genuine practical value for clear communication in formal contexts [1] [1]. The judgement should be supported by at least one specific example of change, such as the informal use of literally as an intensifier or the retreat of whom in speech, showing how the same change can be read as decline or as natural development [1].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Identifying a feature (a dialect word, a sociolect term) without linking it to its social function or the identity/relationship concepts the specification names.
• Blending diversity and change into one undifferentiated answer rather than treating them as two related but distinct lenses.
• Confining a change-focused answer to present-day examples only, missing the required 1600-to-present timeframe.
• Treating quantitative or corpus evidence as self-explanatory, without noting what caution is needed before drawing a conclusion from it.
• Ending an evaluative essay without a reasoned judgement that engages with named debates such as prescriptivism versus descriptivism.

Approaching diversity and change questions

Work through context systematically — personal, social, geographical and temporal context, then audience/purpose/genre/mode — before analysing individual language features in any unfamiliar text, since this establishes the context a strong answer needs before it can explain why a feature matters. When a question presents dialect features specifically, look for non-standard spelling, pronunciation markers, regional lexis and grammar together rather than relying on a single feature, and always state which basis of variation (social versus geographical) is being tested, since confusing the two undermines the basis of the whole analysis. For the evaluative essay style, keep two or three named debates prepared in advance — prescriptivist versus descriptivist attitudes to change, and debates about stigmatised dialects or sociolects are the two most reliably useful — so a specific, credited reference point is always available regardless of which particular question or text the exam provides.